Saturday, November 28, 2015

On the 3rd and 4th November, 2015 the final event for the second Participatory Video Oscar Award was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Twenty-seven organisations participated in this competition for becoming the best participatory video maker 2015 in the Ethiopian Social Accountability Program. Between May and September, 2015 the Social Accountability Implementing Partners implemented participatory video interventions to initiate dialogues on social accountability. On the 3rd November, 2015 the organizations had an opportunity to exchange experiences with each other. The four best nominated organizations competed for the PV Oscar Award. On the 4th November, 2015 the price winner was awarded. This PV Oscar competition is part of the Ethiopian Social Accountability Program Phase 2. It stimulates dialogue between service users and service providers for improving service delivery in the sectors of education,health, water & sanitation, rural road infrastructure and agriculture. Watch video;

Friday, June 26, 2015

‘Outcome harvesting is an excellent tool for
evaluating projects, that operate in a complex environment and that do not have
a pre-defined strategy!’ This was one of the comments
from one of the participants, who participated in a workshop conducted by
Ricardo Wilson Grau, one of the founding fathers of the Outcome Harvesting
method. The workshop was hosted on the
23rd June, 2015 in The Hague by the
Nedworc Association
and OXFAM Novib, participants were Nedworc consultants
and MEL-officers of OXFAM Novib.

Outcome harvesting is an evaluation approach,
involving all stakeholders in a project,
in a program context where there are no clear relations between cause
and effect. Especially projects that involve
lobby and advocacy, fast changing contexts
and unpredictable situations can benefit from the Outcome harvesting approach. In 2013, UNDP selected
Outcome Harvesting as one of the 11 major Monitoring and Evaluation innovations.
There is a toolkit guide and several case studies on how Outcome Harvesting is
applied. Read more at: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/approach/outcome_harvesting

Ricardo Wilson - Grau

The method
has been developed by Ricardo Wilson Grau and his colleagues. They were
inspired by the Outcome Mapping and the Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Outcomes are defined as change in behavior, relationships, actions
& activities and policies &
practices of a social actor (individual,
groups & communities, institutions, organizations). The Outcome Harvesting
method collects evidence on what has changed (who, what, when, where and how). then,
working backwards, determines whether and how an intervention has contributed
to these changes. The evaluation focuses
on effectiveness, rather than on efficiency, which is done in projects with
casual relationships with activities, results and goals. The approach is
composed of 6 steps;

Step 1, Design the
harvest; determines the set-up of the evaluation, the
data collection methods and the evaluation questions that will be asked;

Step 2, Focuses on review of the documentation and
evidence collected. In this phase the most
important Outcome is defined and the most crucial activity or event that
contributed to this outcome is determined.

In step 3, Engage with
informants more
detailed questions are asked from the stakeholders in the project (see in the
diagram above) in knowing more details
about the outcome and the contribution.
This can be done in a face-2-face
workshop setting with the help of a
facilitator having all the stakeholders involved. However, it can also be done
by e-mail posing the questions to each of the stakeholders. This is also the
phase where significance will be given to the outcome by the informants.

Step 4; Substantiate.
This is the phase were external stakeholders, who have not been involved
in the project but who are authorities in domains of the project, are consulted.
They comment and give input on the data and evidence, that has been collected
in step 2 and step 3.

Step 5, Analyse,
interpret and step 6, support use of findings complete the Outcome Harvesting
Cycle. This is phase where lessons,
conclusions and recommendations are drawn. This is where the learning amongst
the stakeholders take place and where recommendations for improvement can be
formulated.

During the
workshop conducted by Ricardo Wilson Grau, the group worked on a case study of
a funding agency, promoting the advancement of women’s rights. We noticed that often specific information
(What, when, where and how?) is lacking
and you need to ‘dig deeper’ to complete the information.

Outcome
Harvesting is characterized by the following strengths:

§ Corrects the common failure to
search for unintended results.

§ Has verifiable harvested outcomes.

§ Uses a logical, accessible approach
that makes it easy to engage informants.

§ Employs various means to collect
data: face-to-face interviews or workshops, communication across distances
(surveys, telephone, or email), and written documentation.

§ Ties the level of detail provided
in the descriptions directly to the questions defined at the outset of the
process; these descriptions may be as brief as a single sentence or as detailed
as page or more of text, and may or may not include explanations of other
variables.

Because of
its nature, Outcome Harvesting also has certain limitations and challenges:

§ Skill and time are required to
identify and formulate high-quality outcome descriptions.

In the
second half of the workshop, Paul Kosterink working with The Global Partnership for the
Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), explained on how Outcome Harvesting is applied
for projects in their organisation. They
got assistance and advice from Ricardo Wilson Grau in building their Outcome
Harvesting design. GPPAC is a member-led network of civil society
organisations (CSOs) active in the field of conflict prevention and
peacebuilding across the world, http://www.gppac.net/nl
. GPPAC is active in a number of
coalitions and networks in preventing armed conflict. Most of their work is
focused on lobbying and advocacy through the networks. ‘The
context in which we work is very complex’ explains Paul Kosterink.

Paul Kosterink

When we ask our partners to report, they have
difficulty in specifying and writing down their results. Therefore, we ask our
partners concrete questions on what changed and on what they achieved,
explains Paul Kosterink. In the environment we work, it is difficult to
reach big results within a short time. Therefore, we ask our partners to come up with simple and
low-key outcomes, which can signify that things are changing. For example a letter from a Ministry of
Defense giving compliments for our work specifying on how we prevent conflict,
can already be a significant Outcome, says Paul Kosterink.

Lessons learned

Participants
expressed that the workshop was useful and helpful. Some of the participants quoted;

·If we would have linked Outcome
Harvesting to our reporting system, it would have produced much better reports;

·The method is appealing. I am
motivated to do more study on how the method works, before I start applying it;·I will propose the Outcome
Harvesting (OH) method as a tool for a developmental evaluation for a proposal, that I am
developing;·The Outcome Harvesting is an
excellent method for projects operating in a complex environment, that do not
have a pre-defined strategy;·Outcome Harvesting will save you a
lot of resources in time, people and money. The evaluator does not need to
collect all the outcomes, but can start working from the evidence that is
collected in the reports;·Outcome Harvesting enables to ask
more detailed and interesting questions for doing an evaluation.·Outcome Harvesting is not easy, but
it is very interesting!

Monday, May 11, 2015

This video shows on how stories are visualized through participatory video stories in one week. From story board development to filming, to editing and then finally presenting and discussing the videos at a community dialogue meeting participants from social accountability partners learn to apply participatory video for dialogue with the community in discussing the progress on educational service delivery in Shashemene, Ethiopia. The training took place from 23 – 27 March, 2015 in Hawassa and Shashemene, Ethiopia. The participants inteviewed and involved 6 stakeholder groups in the discussion on the progress of educational services in Shashemene, Ethiopia. Both user groups, students, and service providers, teachers were involved in this participatory process. As experiment, also control groups from both students and teachers were involved in the PV process. The control groups came from schools, who did not participate in the social accountability process. The training was implemented by a team of participatory video trainers coming from Ethiopia and The Netherlands. Between April and July, 2015 the participants will apply the participatory video in their own workplace and social accountability projects involving their communties. The participatory video training and program is part of the Ethiopian Social Accountability Program Phase 2.

From 18th – 20th March, 2015 twenty participatory video facilitators and practitioners attended a three day advanced training in participatory video. The twenty pv facilitators are representing 10 social accountability implementing partners (SAIPs), that are involved in implementing social accountability processes in the sectors of health, education, agriculture, water & sanitation and rural roads in the whole country of Ethiopia. The pv facilitators conducted pv interventions between October 2014 and February, 2015. This training gave them the opportunity to share their experiences and update their knowledge on participatory video, to learn to work with advanced software in video editing and to learn how to use the participatory videos for monitoring and evaluation and to discuss the opportunities and challenges on how to sustain participatory video in their organisation. Between May and July 2015, these SAIPs will continue to implement new participatory video interventions and are planning to participate in a new PV Oscar Reward Competition for the Ethiopian Social Accountability Program Phase 2. Watch video;

Friday, March 13, 2015

In early
2015 I conducted a Participatory Strategic Planning for a consultancy business.
For this I applied the Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) approach, which has been developed by the
Institute of Cultural Affairs.

Before step
1 takes place in the strategic planning process, an essential step is
necessary, to move forward. This is the
intake and the formulation of the focus question.

The
ownership of the organizational change starts at the intake. Asking the right
questions and getting the right people at the table are crucial conditions for
enabling a successful strategic planning.
The focus question is the starting point of the participatory strategic planning, through
which the progress of the planning is monitored. This question is a perfect
guide in monitoring the development of the client’s and group’s ownership
during the planning process.

Step 1: Values, Identity, Mission,
Trendanalysis and Environmental scan
Shared values ​​and identity build the foundation, why people commit themselves
to a group or organization. Increasingly, identity and values are the pillars
for an organizational strategic plan.
They are part of the mission statement, that explicity answers the
question ‘Why are we as organisation on earth?’

The
trendanalysis is a tool that analyzes the development taking place in the context, which are
influencing the organization. During the environmental scan opportunities and
threats are mapped in a systematic manner. Both tools will help to answer the
question if the existing organizational mission is still relevant or need to be
modified.

Step 2: Practical Vision
This phase builds on the dreams and the positive energy of the group. In an
associative way, the participants create a new perspective of the future of the
organization or group. At the end, participants have defined a vision for a
defined period of time.

Step 3: Underlying obstacles
Before participants reflect on the strategic priorities for the future, they look
at the underlying obstacles that hinder them in achieving their future goals.
During this session, a self-reflective process is facilitated in researching
the current situation why the organization is not realizing their future
dreams. This phase helps to take a step back and observe from a distance and
have a fresh watch at the current reality. This is a crucial phase were the
transformation is taking place.
Participants can not blame others, but are guided in a thorough process
of self reflection.

Step 4: Strategic Directions
Once the blocks have been mapped, the group starts with the formulation of the
strategic priorities. This phase helps the group to formulate a new strategic
focus that will deal with the opportunities and the threats. The challenge is to provide a new perspective
on the current situation. In this session participants will be challenged to develop
new products & services, identify new markets and new modes of
working.

Step 5: Operational planning
Based on the selected strategies, the group defines a one-year plan including
milestones and a three months operational plan. During this phase tasks and
responsibilities will be divided. Commitments will be made on the
implementation and monitoring the progress of this plan. It is crucial in this stage that the
conditions and available resources in time and money are communicated to enable
the implementation of the operational plan.

Critical factors for Success

There are 7
critical factors, which determine if a Participatory Strategic Planning will
become a success.

1. The Intake, ensuring commitment from the
leadership

The intake
is a crucial phase in the PSP. From the beginning to the end the senior
management has to take ownership of the process. During the whole process of
planning up to implementation the senior management has to lead and to monitor
the development of the focus question and the implementation of the plan. Will the
key question be answered? If the
leadership does not take their full responsibility the process is doomed to
fail.

2. Quality of participants

The quality
of participants will determine the outcome and successful implementation of the
plan. Not only senior management should be involved, but also staff from all
levels in the organization. Diversity , knowledge and views from different
perspectives to bring in as much viewpoints as possible. An adequate selection
of participants is needed for a successful outcome of the participatory
strategic planning.

3. Quality of facilitation

The quality
and experience of the facilitator will be of crucial importance in helping the
group to explore new territory. The facilitator not only needs to know about
attractive and innovative facilitation methods, but also is required to know
how to deal with group dynamics,
emotions of fear and anger and moments of unexpected resistance.
Resistance and conflict are valuable moments for facilitating change.

4. Conditions for implementing the strategic plan
should be clear

The
conditions for implementing the change and the strategic plan should be clear
from the beginning. Staff from the organization should know from the beginning
how much time, resources and support from the senior management is available
for implementing the strategic plan. The commitment and seriousness from the
management should be clear and therefore, they need to communicate these
conditions clearly during the participatory strategic planning event. Especially time for doing for example
training, skills development or innovation should be allocated by the senior
management. If staff do not get the extra time and the resources to implement
changes, a successful implementation is doomed to fail.

5. Follow-up

Plans get
adjusted all the time. Most strategic
plans get adjusted during the implementation due to unforeseen changes in the
contextual environment, changes in the organizaiton or change of staff. Mostly a plan is implemented successful in
case an organization is able to adjust the path during the journey. A good plan
is more than half of the work, but a successful strategy can only be
implemented if the organization is able to deal with the challenges it meets on
the road. Therefore, regular
follow-up (at least (bi) monthly) is
needed ensure a successful implementation.

6. Documentation is done by the organization

It is not
the facilitator who is doing the documentation of the participatory strategic
plan, but it is required that the organization is documenting and writing the
strategic plan themselves. If real commitment comes from the senior management,
it is up to them to write, document and disseminate the strategic plan. In most
cases when the strategic plan is written by the facilitator, it becomes a paper
tiger and ends in a desk drawer. So, it is important during the intake and
preparation of the participatory strategic planning to make the client
responsible for the documentation and dissemination of the strategic plan.

7. Keep the momentum and ensure that
implementation continues straight after the participatory strategic planning
event

Due to the
participatory process many participatory strategic planning events gain a lot
of enthousiasm, joy and energy with the group. Therefore, it is important that
the momentum is continued after the strategic planning event. The participants should become the owners of
the implementation process and the senior management must have the courage to
trust, to facilitate and delegate parts of the implementation to the staff. Every
moment of delay in the process, will take away the energy and the momentum with
the staff in the organization. So the energy and the momentum should be
continued. Therefore it is important that the working groups, that are created
at the end of the participatory strategic planning have formulated challenging
milestones for the quarters to come. If
they have the opportunity to celebrate a victory within considerable time, the
energy can be maintained and continued.

A book I
can really recommend and is worthwhile reading, is the book ‘TransformationalStrategy’ written by Bill Staples. It describes the process of participatory
strategic planning in detail, it puts the method in today’s context and it
gives some helpful and useful tips and tools on how to facilitate it
effectively. The book contains some valuable case studies from the profit and
non-profit sector and it provides some checklist on how you prepare a
successful participatory strategic planning.
See>>> TransformationalStrategy’ written by Bill Staples. The Participatory Strategic is part of the Technology of Participation methods (TOP).

Thursday, February 19, 2015

From 3 - 7 November, 2014 CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU) organised a five day pilot training on Knowledge Management for development practitioners working in the agricultural and rural development sector. This pilot training was attended by knowledge management practitioners and development practitioners working on agricultural and rural development projects in the ACP (Africa, Carribean and Pacific) countries. The training was conducted by Lucie Lamoureux, trainer/ facilitator and knowledge management expert working with KM4D Associates. This five day training was held in Ede and was closed with a knowledge fair at the CTA Office in Wageningen, The Netherlands. Watch the video:

The training provides an introduction into Knowledge Management. Key questions which are answered during the training are; What is Knowledge Management? What do I already do with KM in my organization and how do I create the proper conditions for having the appropriate cultural environment to do KM? In addition participants learn a number of tools and methods on how they can initiate and encourage knowledge management in the organisation. The course is very practical and provides a lot of useful tips and hints.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

From 10 - 12 November, 2014 CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU) organised a pilot training in Knowledge Management for Senior Management in the Agricultural and Rural Development Sector. The training was attended by Knowledge Management and project managers and practitioners and experts in knowledge management. The 2 day training was composed of 6 units aiming to expose the participants with the basic concepts and tools of knowledge management. The training was conducted by Jaap Pels and Simon Koolwijk. Watch the video:

The video gives a logical explanation about the theory, the principles and the definition of knowledge management and it explains the process of the two - day training for senior managers. It shows how the senior management gets acquainted with some of the key models in knowledge management and how to relate this to the work in the own organization. During the video the participants comment on how they experienced the exercises and the training as a whole.

Subscribe To

Simon Koolwijk

Welcome!

I am an international consultant, specialised in building capacities of organisations and people. I worked for 3 1/2 years in Kenya, and since 1997 I have my own consultancy guiding international development projects over more than 20 countries. I am a Certified Professional Facilitator through IAF.Through this weblog I would like to share my experiences and keep you updated what keeps me busy at the moment. And in case you like to share and exchange, you are welcome to join!Hereby view my profile!